justmeMN wrote:NickZ2016 wrote:Calendar still claims 2022. The entry level camera is the smartphone. It's not a standalone camera.I don't know about the rest of the world, but in Japan (BCN) entry level cameras dominate camera unit sales.Entry level cameras dominate in all markets. I don't think any company makes a profit on entry level - it's a loss leader and contributes some economies of scale. But the unique distribution channels and support, marketing, and service requirements for entry level consumer products are very expensive at low volumes, so the segment will never make a profit.There are less than 3 million entry level cameras sold each year. At retail, they represent about 1.5 billion in revenue. Name another consumer electronics product that has such a small volume for the entire market. Forget smart phones which sell 1.3 billion units annually.https://www.statista.com/outlook/cmo/consumer-electronics/worldwide#revenue

The Full Frame format has been marketed for years as the final destination if you are a camera user. I have to believe that there are a ton of people out there buying equipment that is overkill for many of their uses. I did it myself. Nothing wrong with that if you are being honest with yourself. Camera gear is pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of things so do whatever floats your boat. We only live once. But, I don't believe that enthusiasts always want to carry around larger lenses, heavier equipment and features that a professional making a living off of their cameras need.If Nikon wanted to make a crop system as successful as Fuji, I think they could easily do that. But they would rather market the more profitable gear. The attitude towards a crop sensor  would be in a different position if they did take it more seriously and more people would be praising the format as a viable alternative. Companies are not always telling you the truth. They are telling you what they want you to believe and you don't even realize it at times. They are in business to make money.

Ramon767 wrote:No, EVF lagThere is only EVF lag if you are not "Photographically prepared" without first pressure on the shutter/back button until after the action to be captured has occurredand decent AF.While a little dated the Z6/7 series haveverydecent AF for probably more than 90% of photographers needs.Actually had an opportunity to buy a Z9 this afternoon and instead decided that it’s probably just easier to sell up and move on at this point.It is your decision whether or not to pass on a Z9.If you do switch you can then consider a switch back to Nikon when Nikon launch new more advanced lower price bracket productsIf you do this camera retailers will be very happy.

ghostfox_1 wrote:The issue is you're going to have the same problem in 10 years with tech advances. Phones are going to be that much better, and so will the AI tricks. I've accepted ILCs are a niche market (even more than it used to be), and everyone else should too, regardless of how much you don't want to. Modern phones are good enough for the vast majority of people, and the end result of where we're going is just like how film has been dying (though I'd say it died once already and hipsters resurrected it, but I digress). Change happens, and we need to go with it, or just be cranky like the people who still want nikon to make an FTZ with a screw drive because they want their 40 year old lens to work.No.You're comparing different technologies.Film can still go head-to-head with the vast majority of sensors out there. As of this moment, the aesthetic is not replicable even 20 years after the digital revolution. No wonder there are still die-hard film shooters and newbies buying it (have you checked the prices of used film cameras lately?)Same goes for DSLRs and MILCs. No matter the AI trickery "the look" is not easily replicated by phones. It's good enough for small screens, of course, but they remain different technologies.

EduPortas wrote:Film can still go head-to-head with the vast majority of sensors out there.If you mean for resolution - are you joking?As of this moment, the aesthetic is not replicable even 20 years after the digital revolution.Probably 99% of the population are not familiar with this detail - hardly likely to be easily detectable on a jpeg monitor.

EduPortas wrote:ghostfox_1 wrote:The issue is you're going to have the same problem in 10 years with tech advances. Phones are going to be that much better, and so will the AI tricks. I've accepted ILCs are a niche market (even more than it used to be), and everyone else should too, regardless of how much you don't want to. Modern phones are good enough for the vast majority of people, and the end result of where we're going is just like how film has been dying (though I'd say it died once already and hipsters resurrected it, but I digress). Change happens, and we need to go with it, or just be cranky like the people who still want nikon to make an FTZ with a screw drive because they want their 40 year old lens to work.No.You're comparing different technologies.Film can still go head-to-head with the vast majority of sensors out there. As of this moment, the aesthetic is not replicable even 20 years after the digital revolution. No wonder there are still die-hard film shooters and newbies buying it (have you checked the prices of used film cameras lately?)Same goes for DSLRs and MILCs. No matter the AI trickery "the look" is not easily replicated by phones. It's good enough for small screens, of course, but they remain different technologies.To your first point, the only people who care about the "aesthetic" of film shoot it now because of nostalgia, and/or are are hipsters who feel the need to be special and unique, just like every other hipster, or are hopping on a trend that'll die in a year because some Instagram tool went "guys, back in the stone age, they did this stuff with terrible cameras, but the look is fire!" or whatever the kids think is cool. I've seen very few people get into it because they actually enjoy it for its own sake that didn't do it years ago.If you just want the softness and kinda low res look, adapt a really soft lens and shoot pretty wide open. It solves that problem for people who want "the look" over technical quality.With actually quality? Lol. Any modern camera body blows film out of the water in every single way that's objective (shots per second, feature set, customization, lens quality, auto focus, etc etc).As for small screens, that's all 95% of people use. We're a niche group of a niche group, and it's time you (and everyone else who shares some of your opinions needs to accept that for what it is. Dx is dying/dead, just like mft is, just like film is.

As for small screens, that's all 95% of people use. We're a niche group of a niche group, and it's time you (and everyone else who shares some of your opinions needs to accept that for what it is. Dx is dying/dead, just like mft is, just like film is.Nikon userbase is dying too.

Leonard Shepherd wrote:EduPortas wrote:Film can still go head-to-head with the vast majority of sensors out there.If you mean for resolution - are you joking?For resolution, he's right. There are some absurdly high res BW film stocks out there. Stocks like adox CMS ii are packing similar lines/mm as an unbinned smartphone sensor (800 l/mm, so kind of like 0.625um pixels), so long as you use the right developer.Cheap colour neg film is a different story, of course. Portra 400 starts dropping contrast around 25 l/mm, in FF terms that's just 8 megapickles or so (accounting for the lower chroma resolution of bayer sensors).

If you mean for resolution - are you joking?No one cares about resolution, only if the image is pleasant or not.Probably 99% of the population are not familiar with this detail - hardly likely to be easily detectable on a jpeg monitor.Clearly every camera manufacturer disagrees with you. There's a unique look to film that Arri and Red, in particular, and every camera manufacturer in general, has tried to replicate since the first DSLR came out.

To your first point, the only people who care about the "aesthetic" of film shoot it now because of nostalgia, and/or are are hipsters who feel the need to be special and unique, just like every other hipster, or are hopping on a trend that'll die in a year because some Instagram tool went "guys, back in the stone age, they did this stuff with terrible cameras, but the look is fire!" or whatever the kids think is cool. I've seen very few people get into it because they actually enjoy it for its own sake that didn't do it years ago.As I replied earlier, every camera brand has tried or trying actively to replicate the "film look". It's the benchmark for aesthetic quality. Case in point: Fujifilm.If you just want the softness and kinda low res look, adapt a really soft lens and shoot pretty wide open. It solves that problem for people who want "the look" over technical quality.I never said film should be "soft". Old films and photos look sharp as heck if the digital transfer is done correctly.With actually quality? Lol. Any modern camera body blows film out of the water in every single way that's objective (shots per second, feature set, customization, lens quality, auto focus, etc etc).Yes, but not necesarilly in image quality. 5D classic imagery remains as solid as always.As for small screens, that's all 95% of people use. We're a niche group of a niche group, and it's time you (and everyone else who shares some of your opinions needs to accept that for what it is. Dx is dying/dead, just like mft is, just like film is.¿Really? I'm here watching Canon and Nikon and Sony going for a second go-round in ASP-C. I understand the jive against M43, but not APS-C. It's clearly a seller and has been during the last 20 years.

EduPortas wrote:To your first point, the only people who care about the "aesthetic" of film shoot it now because of nostalgia, and/or are are hipsters who feel the need to be special and unique, just like every other hipster, or are hopping on a trend that'll die in a year because some Instagram tool went "guys, back in the stone age, they did this stuff with terrible cameras, but the look is fire!" or whatever the kids think is cool. I've seen very few people get into it because they actually enjoy it for its own sake that didn't do it years ago.As I replied earlier, every camera brand has tried or trying actively to replicate the "film look". It's the benchmark for aesthetic quality. Case in point: Fujifilm.Ah yes, the only manufacturer who tries to directly emulate film, because they sold film and have the name still. Great example. Not.I know a lot of people who don't care about what film looked like, and a lot that do. But it's not a universal thing, and the ones that do care fall into the above categories.If you just want the softness and kinda low res look, adapt a really soft lens and shoot pretty wide open. It solves that problem for people who want "the look" over technical quality.I never said film should be "soft". Old films and photos look sharp as heck if the digital transfer is done correctly.They're often softer than modern images, due to worse lenses. When you ask people what they think of when they hear 'film', I highly doubt 'sharpness' is in the top 5 things they'll reply with, but maybe I'm wrong.With actually quality? Lol. Any modern camera body blows film out of the water in every single way that's objective (shots per second, feature set, customization, lens quality, auto focus, etc etc).Yes, but not necesarilly in image quality. 5D classic imagery remains as solid as always.So we agree that in objective things we can actually measure, modern cameras win. Good. One small step for internet arguments.Image quality is highly subjective as to what's 'good', but we can say modern lenses are much likely to be better quality, and that while you can make great pictures with a lot of things, the things we can objectively measure tend to heavily weight in favor of modern technology (and you can emulate to a large extend nearly everything about film, if that's your desire).As for small screens, that's all 95% of people use. We're a niche group of a niche group, and it's time you (and everyone else who shares some of your opinions needs to accept that for what it is. Dx is dying/dead, just like mft is, just like film is.¿Really? I'm here watching Canon and Nikon and Sony going for a second go-round in ASP-C. I understand the jive against M43, but not APS-C. It's clearly a seller and has been during the last 20 years.What is nikon doing in crop format? A vlog camera? Yep. super invested. They're clearly not prioritizing it, which they shouldn't, but we can go around in circles all day, and we have our differing opinions there.

ghostfox_1 wrote:EduPortas wrote:To your first point, the only people who care about the "aesthetic" of film shoot it now because of nostalgia, and/or are are hipsters who feel the need to be special and unique, just like every other hipster, or are hopping on a trend that'll die in a year because some Instagram tool went "guys, back in the stone age, they did this stuff with terrible cameras, but the look is fire!" or whatever the kids think is cool. I've seen very few people get into it because they actually enjoy it for its own sake that didn't do it years ago.As I replied earlier, every camera brand has tried or trying actively to replicate the "film look". It's the benchmark for aesthetic quality. Case in point: Fujifilm.Ah yes, the only manufacturer who tries to directly emulate film, because they sold film and have the name still. Great example. Not.Yep. I had the Fuji X100 for a bit, and it was fun to shoot with. But the janky colors it produced when in Provia or other "film modes" was a real downer. When I see those images (shot back in 2012-2013) I kinda die inside a little. It's a neat idea for the hipster-dufuss, but not beyond that. Thankfully Nikon has not gone in that sad direction. I haven't owned a Fujifilm camera since the X100.I know a lot of people who don't care about what film looked like, and a lot that do. But it's not a universal thing, and the ones that do care fall into the above categories.If you just want the softness and kinda low res look, adapt a really soft lens and shoot pretty wide open. It solves that problem for people who want "the look" over technical quality.I never said film should be "soft". Old films and photos look sharp as heck if the digital transfer is done correctly.They're often softer than modern images, due to worse lenses. When you ask people what they think of when they hear 'film', I highly doubt 'sharpness' is in the top 5 things they'll reply with, but maybe I'm wrong.I have scanned images I shot with my 1949 Rolleiflex that sports a 75mm f3.5 Zeiss Tessar lens that look pretty darn "sharp" to me. Helps to shoot with one of the slowest black and white films, good old Agfa 25 (long since discontinued). But 35mm scans of Fuji NPS 160 came out grainy as heck and I don't mind it so much, I guess they look "sharp" if you calculate in the grain acuteness.With actually quality? Lol. Any modern camera body blows film out of the water in every single way that's objective (shots per second, feature set, customization, lens quality, auto focus, etc etc).Yes, but not necesarilly in image quality. 5D classic imagery remains as solid as always.So we agree that in objective things we can actually measure, modern cameras win. Good. One small step for internet arguments.Image quality is highly subjective as to what's 'good', but we can say modern lenses are much likely to be better quality, and that while you can make great pictures with a lot of things, the things we can objectively measure tend to heavily weight in favor of modern technology (and you can emulate to a large extend nearly everything about film, if that's your desire).Indeed. "Good" photography is in the eye of the beholder. Ansel Adams is widely quoted with "There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept"As for small screens, that's all 95% of people use. We're a niche group of a niche group, and it's time you (and everyone else who shares some of your opinions needs to accept that for what it is. Dx is dying/dead, just like mft is, just like film is.¿Really? I'm here watching Canon and Nikon and Sony going for a second go-round in ASP-C. I understand the jive against M43, but not APS-C. It's clearly a seller and has been during the last 20 years.What is nikon doing in crop format? A vlog camera? Yep. super invested. They're clearly not prioritizing it, which they shouldn't, but we can go around in circles all day, and we have our differing opinions there.

APSC and yes, m43 too, are not going anywhere unless and until high-quality FF glass engineering produces lenses of the weight and size of the best lenses for those formats. This door is starting to be kicked open with camera bodies. Lenses are the final frontier. Only when that occurs are APSC and m43 in serious danger of disappearing. It's not, "phone or full-frame." There remains a substantive niche of photo enthusiasts who want the control, IQ, and haptics/ergonomics of a camera as opposed to a phone, but have no interest in dragging around FF outfits at current bulk/weight. Certainly the companies can't afford to cater to only that niche or primarily that niche.But they're fools if they let it go.

UsherFellig wrote:APSC and yes, m43 too, are not going anywhere unless and until high-quality FF glass engineering produces lenses of the weight and size of the best lenses for those formats. This door is starting to be kicked open with camera bodies. Lenses are the final frontier. Only when that occurs are APSC and m43 in serious danger of disappearing. It's not, "phone or full-frame." There remains a substantive niche of photo enthusiasts who want the control, IQ, and haptics/ergonomics of a camera as opposed to a phone, but have no interest in dragging around FF outfits at current bulk/weight. Certainly the companies can't afford to cater to only that niche or primarily that niche.But they're fools if they let it go.And I'll tell you the same thing I've said 20 other times, the market doesn't agree. MFT is dead. Film is dead. DX is slowly being related to vlogging and similar, instead of serious photography, and I'd argue well on it's way to dying now.Modern ff gear is just as light as the high end (and good) aspc stuff. I mean, okay, maybe 100 grams heavier, but that's just part of life. If you can't adjust to that, then that's a whole other issueYou can complain, but that doesn't change reality.

ghostfox_1 wrote:UsherFellig wrote:APSC and yes, m43 too, are not going anywhere unless and until high-quality FF glass engineering produces lenses of the weight and size of the best lenses for those formats. This door is starting to be kicked open with camera bodies. Lenses are the final frontier. Only when that occurs are APSC and m43 in serious danger of disappearing. It's not, "phone or full-frame." There remains a substantive niche of photo enthusiasts who want the control, IQ, and haptics/ergonomics of a camera as opposed to a phone, but have no interest in dragging around FF outfits at current bulk/weight. Certainly the companies can't afford to cater to only that niche or primarily that niche.But they're fools if they let it go.And I'll tell you the same thing I've said 20 other times, the market doesn't agree. MFT is dead. Film is dead. DX is slowly being related to vlogging and similar, instead of serious photography, and I'd argue well on it's way to dying now.Modern ff gear is just as light as the high end (and good) aspc stuff. I mean, okay, maybe 100 grams heavier, but that's just part of life. If you can't adjust to that, then that's a whole other issueYou can complain, but that doesn't change reality.I'm not complaining. I am expressing a viewpoint, which you seem to find impermissible. I find it comical that you are so exercised at reading input that differs from your perspective. You don't have a monopoly on reality or on how this will all play out.And no, ff lenses are not "just as light" as those for cropped-sensor gear, nor are they of equal bulk.    This misstatement of fact is telling, given the rather rude and ad hominem tone of your exhortations implying one has "issues" that are "part of life," "if you can't adjust."

Canon just came out with an R10 and a R7 It's likely Nikon will be updating the Z50 and generally they mirror what Canon does So expect a competitor to the R7. I get where you are coming from in a way, but it's hard to say how things will pan out. To assume that Full frame is a safe format is wishful thinking. Photography as we once knew it is threatened all across the board. None of these formats are future proof. Time marches on and technology advances. A few years back everybody laughed at Mirrorless and thought  the F mount was certain to last another 50 years.

UsherFellig wrote:ghostfox_1 wrote:UsherFellig wrote:APSC and yes, m43 too, are not going anywhere unless and until high-quality FF glass engineering produces lenses of the weight and size of the best lenses for those formats. This door is starting to be kicked open with camera bodies. Lenses are the final frontier. Only when that occurs are APSC and m43 in serious danger of disappearing. It's not, "phone or full-frame." There remains a substantive niche of photo enthusiasts who want the control, IQ, and haptics/ergonomics of a camera as opposed to a phone, but have no interest in dragging around FF outfits at current bulk/weight. Certainly the companies can't afford to cater to only that niche or primarily that niche.But they're fools if they let it go.And I'll tell you the same thing I've said 20 other times, the market doesn't agree. MFT is dead. Film is dead. DX is slowly being related to vlogging and similar, instead of serious photography, and I'd argue well on it's way to dying now.Modern ff gear is just as light as the high end (and good) aspc stuff. I mean, okay, maybe 100 grams heavier, but that's just part of life. If you can't adjust to that, then that's a whole other issueYou can complain, but that doesn't change reality.I'm not complaining. I am expressing a viewpoint, which you seem to find impermissible. I find it comical that you are so exercised at reading input that differs from your perspective. You don't have a monopoly on reality or on how this will all play out.And no, ff lenses are not "just as light" as those for cropped-sensor gear, nor are they of equal bulk. This misstatement of fact is telling, given the rather rude and ad hominem tone of your exhortations implying one has "issues" that are "part of life," "if you can't adjust."If you want the same depth of field, etc, they absolutely are. You can't beat physics.And yes, if there is a physical limitation that you can't overcome, that's up to you to deal with. I don't complain when I can't run a 10k. I accept that I either need to get in better shape, or not do it. If more people accepted things like that, the world would be a better place. But we are not in this world.

Monty71 wrote:Canon just came out with an R10 and a R7 It's likely Nikon will be updating the Z50 and generally they mirror what Canon does So expect a competitor to the R7. I get where you are coming from in a way, but it's hard to say how things will pan out. To assume that Full frame is a safe format is wishful thinking. Photography as we once knew it is threatened all across the board. None of these formats are future proof. Time marches on and technology advances. A few years back everybody laughed at Mirrorless and thought the F mount was certain to last another 50 years.I only assume FF is safe right now. In 10 years, it might not be. I expect mobile phones to take more and more market share, and likely one of the big 3 to fold in turn when the market shrinks. It might be nikon, it might not.

Fair point. I think the various formats are specializing a lot more now to find more "safety". FF is the general purpose format so will likely see general long term support. M43 is flat out better for macro (can't beat physics 😉), and we're seeing some great lenses for that in the m43 format.APS-C is a middle ground for sure. All purpose for video and photo. Faster sensors in FF negate the speed advantage but not the price. I imagine there will be a group of people who love photography but don't want to spend $7000 on a Z9. I'm in that group.FF is definitely awesome, but people don't see my m43 or APS-C images and note the irrelevant noise advantage of FF at base ISO (or ISO 3200 with PureRaw2). If I produce good compositions nobody really cares about the gear. Only me when I spend too much time on forums 😁

X Ray wrote:Nikon's too busy at the moment getting that easy money from retired boomers. Can you blame them? With the overwhelming success of internet shilling, it's shooting fish in a barrel.Pretty sure the Z30, their latest camera, is not meant for retired boomers.